Ana səhifə

Faculty Assessment Survey on Undergraduate Research University of California, Irvine I. Introduction


Yüklə 133.94 Kb.
tarix04.05.2016
ölçüsü133.94 Kb.
Faculty Assessment Survey on Undergraduate Research
University of California, Irvine

I. INTRODUCTION:
According to the Boyer Commission Report, one of the hallmarks of undergraduate education at a research university should be the opportunity for a student to participate in research that is genuine and meaningful and to be actively engaged in the research process under the direction of a faculty mentor. Participating in research is increasingly an integral component of the education an undergraduate receives at the University of California, Irvine. As a Research I University, UCI continues to attract an increasing number of undergraduate students wanting to participate in faculty-mentored undergraduate research projects and creative activities.
UCI with its seven undergraduate degree-granting schools (Arts, Biological Sciences, Engineering, Humanities, Physical Sciences, Social Ecology, Social Sciences) and the Department of Information & Computer Science has launched and nurtured many department-based and school-based programs in support of undergraduate research. Some of these programs receive external funding from corporate sponsors and federal agencies (i.e., National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, or the U.S. Department of Education). Others are funded locally. In addition, many undergraduates have conducted research under the guidance of faculty members from the College of Medicine, and a few have worked with faculty members from the Graduate School of Management. This growing commitment of UCI faculty and administration to the support of undergraduate research opportunities has led to the development of a number of centralized undergraduate research programs including: the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) in 1995, and the Summer Undergraduate Research Program (administered by UROP) in 2001.
There has been much discussion throughout the University of California System—on campuses and at the Office of the President—as well as at the national level, about the benefits of undergraduate research. Here we ask: what do faculty perceive as the benefits and barriers to successful undergraduate research experiences, and what educational value and impact do they have on students’ development and preparation for future careers?
In Winter 2002, UC Irvine invited its faculty to respond to an assessment survey on the potential benefits of undergraduate research for both students and faculty, on barriers to mentoring, and on the amount of faculty time and effort involved in mentoring undergraduate research projects. This assessment project has captured, from the faculty's point of view, the impact that the undergraduate research experience has had on both students and faculty. We hope results of the survey will be of great value to faculty, Academic Affairs, and schools/departments here on our campus, and the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) in its discussions with the State regarding budget appropriations and faculty workload issues. Specifically, the time faculty use for mentoring undergraduate research projects and creative activities has often been understated due to lack of adequate data. This survey was administered by the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP1) in the Division of Undergraduate Education, and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) under protocol #2002-2250.


II. METHODS:
A web-based survey was designed to capture faculty’s perceptions about the undergraduate research experience at UC Irvine. At the start of the survey, faculty were asked to indicate if they had directed an undergraduate research project—defined as “any inquiry, study or investigation undertaken by an undergraduate student (or group of students) under the supervision or mentorship of a faculty member that results in an intellectual or creative contribution to an area of study and is shared with others.” The survey consisted of 18 primarily multiple-choice questions for faculty who indicated “yes” for mentoring undergraduate research projects or creative activities and two questions for faculty who responded with a “no” to this question.
Questions to faculty who have mentored undergraduate research projects capture faculty's perceptions on the outcomes of the undergraduate research experience for both students and faculty, faculty's time and effort in mentoring undergraduate research projects and creative activities, and ways to improve the overall experience and programs in support of undergraduate research at UC Irvine. Questions to faculty who have not mentored such projects invite faculty's feedback on possible reasons of why they did not mentor undergraduate research projects and creative activities.
To contact faculty, a table was generated that included the names, e-mail addresses, home departments and schools of the faculty, and whether they have ever mentored a UROP or SURP-supported project. Each name was assigned a random code that consists of three letters, which was already imbedded in a clickable web address. This address and other information from the table were merged into a prepared document, so that it could be exported as a personalized e-mail from Professor Meredith Lee, Dean of the Division of Undergraduate Education, to the 1018 faculty members at UC Irvine, inviting them to respond to this web-based survey. The faculty consisted of 968 active members of the Academic Senate (excludes emeriti), plus 50 additional faculty mentors who have mentored a UROP or SURP-supported undergraduate research project but who are not members of the Academic Senate. A hard copy version of the survey is attached, but it can also be viewed online at this website: http://due-web.ugs.uci.edu/UROP/FacultySurvey/tst. All non-respondents were sent two e-mail reminders—about a week apart—encouraging them to complete the survey from: Executive Vice Chancellor Michael Gottfredson, and UROP Director Said Shokair.


III. RESULTS:
UROP received a total of 557 responses (55% response rate), which is outstanding for a faculty survey (Table 1). Compared to the faculty at large, survey respondents were slightly overrepresented (biggest difference in percentages between respondents and total population by school) in the Biological Sciences and Social Sciences, and slightly underrepresented (smallest difference between respondents and total population by school) in the areas of Education, Management, and Medicine. Results were not corrected for over/under-representation.


Table 1. Comparison of Survey Respondents to Non-Respondents, by Academic Unit

Academic Unit

Respondents

Non-Respondents

Population*

N

%

N

%

N

%

Arts

28

5%

23

5%

51

5%

Biological Sciences

62

11%

27

6%

89

9%

Education

0

0%

14

3%

14

1%

Engineering

47

8%

34

7%

81

8%

Humanities

81

15%

76

16%

157

15%

Info. & Computer Science

24

4%

16

4%

40

4%

Management

11

2%

32

7%

43

4%

Medicine

114

20%

142

31%

256

25%

Physical Sciences

72

13%

47

10%

119

12%

Social Ecology

43

8%

16

4%

59

6%

Social Sciences

75

14%

34

7%

109

11%
Total

557

100.0%

461

100.0%

1018

100.0%

*Population = Active members of the Academic Senate, Fall 2001, plus 50 other non-Senate academics who directed UROP/SURP projects.
Of those who responded to the survey, 451 out of 557 (81%) faculty members, indicated that they have directed (now or in the past) undergraduate research projects (Table 2). Respondents were probably more likely than non-respondents to be participating in undergraduate research since it is the topic of the survey. Compared to the “no” respondents, the “yes” respondents were much more likely to be from the sciences and Engineering.

Table 2. Comparison of Survey Respondents Who Have (Yes) and Have not (No) Directed Undergraduate Research Projects, by Academic Unit

Academic Unit

Yes

No

Total (Yes + No)

N

%

N

%

N

%

Arts

23

5%

5

5%

28

5%

Biological Sciences

58

13%

4

4%

62

11%

Engineering

41

9%

6

5%

47

8%

Humanities

61

13%

20

19%

81

15%

Info. & Computer Science

22

5%

2

2%

24

4%

Management

2

1%

9

8%

11

2%

Medicine

91

20%

23

22%

114

20%

Physical Sciences

53

12%

19

18%

72

13%

Social Ecology

39

9%

4

4%

43

8%

Social Sciences

61

13%

14

13%

75

14%
Total

451

100.0%

106

100.0%

557

100.0%

Survey item: have you directed an undergraduate research project?
For the purpose of this report, all of the faculty responses were further analyzed by academic unit. In the sections that follow, results for all responses are presented, and if there are any significant differences by academic unit, they are also noted.
Part IV (next) presents results found for those who responded “yes”—they have directed undergraduate research projects. Part V presents a brief summary of those who responded “no” and the reasons why they didn’t direct undergraduate research projects. Part VI contains conclusions, and Part VII contains acknowledgements.


IV. RESPONSES FROM FACULTY WHO HAVE MENTORED UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECTS OR CREATIVE ACTIVITIES:
Faculty who have mentored an undergraduate research project or creative activity were invited to provide feedback to primarily multiple choice questions. Generally, when percentages are reported, they refer to the percent of faculty who actually responded to the item. More detailed data are included in the attached tables (Table A#).

Types of Projects Directed:
The first item asked what types of undergraduate research projects faculty have directed; they were asked to check all that applied (that is, multiple responses were allowed). The most common type of projects was “individual projects,” selected by 57%, followed by “laboratory projects” (46%), and “senior thesis/term paper” (37%) (Table A1). As might be expected, there were significant differences by academic unit. The top three categories for each unit are noted in the following table.
Table 3. Top Three Most Common Types of Projects, by Academic Unit


School

Top Three Categories*

Arts

Artistic, Individual, Senior Thesis/ Term Paper




Biological Sciences

Laboratory, Individual, Experiential/ Field Studies


Engineering

Laboratory, Individual, Group


Humanities

Scholarly Work in Humanities, Individual Projects, Senior Thesis/ Term Paper


Information & Computer Science


Individual, Design, Group

Management

Surveys, Senior Thesis, Experiential/ Field Studies


Medicine

Laboratory, Individual, Clinical


Physical Sciences

Individual, Laboratory, Senior Thesis


Social Ecology

Individual, Senior Thesis, Surveys/ Psychology Experiments


Social Sciences

Individual, Senior Thesis, Scholarly Work in Social Sciences


* For additional details, please see Table A2.
For this item, the most frequently listed responses under “Other” include: software/computer programming, data/statistical analysis, and ethnographic research (Table A3).

Work with Undergraduates or Graduate Students/Post Docs:
The second item asked whether a faculty member has worked directly with undergraduates, or with postdocs or graduate students who work directly with undergraduates. Close to 80% of the 451 respondents to this question have indicated “working directly with undergraduates” as reflected in Table A4. There were significant differences by academic unit (Table A5), where ninety percent of the faculty in Arts (100%), Humanities (98%), Social Ecology (90%), and Social Sciences (97%) work directly with undergraduate students on their research projects. The two units most likely to work directly with graduate students or post docs, who in turn work with undergraduates, were Biological Sciences (45%) and Medicine (43%).

Importance of Outcomes:
Faculty were asked to rank-order three different outcomes that are frequently said to be important for the undergraduate research experience. The three different outcomes and their rankings are (Table A6):


  1. that students experience research first-hand (ranked first, 78% of those who responded to this item),

  2. that the experience motivates students to go to graduate school (ranked second, 59%), and

  3. that the research findings make a contribution to the field (ranked third, 55%).

There were some small differences by academic unit, but the order of choices remains the same (Table A7). In addition, most frequently cited outcomes (56 responses) under “Other” were (more details in Table A8):


Faculty interaction and access 16%

Real-world application 16%

Expand knowledge of subject matter 13%

Develop important skills 11%



Time Spent on Undergraduate Research Projects:
Faculty were then asked how many hours per week they typically spend on undergraduate research projects this academic year and compared to five and ten years ago. Of those who responded to this item, 22% reported that they currently spend less than one hour per week, 35% spend 1-2 hours, 23% spend 3-4 hours, 9% spend 5-6 hours, 4% spend 7-8 hours, 3% spend 9-10 hours, and 4% spend more than 10 hours per week (Table A9).
Compared to five years ago, 34% reported they now spend more time (much or somewhat more), 34% spend about the same amount of time, and the remaining 32% spend less time (less or much less). Compared to 10 years ago, 44% now spend more time (much or somewhat more), 22% spend about the same amount of time, and 34% spend less time (less or much less). Responses of “not applicable” were excluded from the counts and percents (Table A9).
Differences between academic units were minimal (Table A10). Results were not significantly different when looking at responses of faculty who worked directly with undergraduates and those who worked with grad students.

Number of Undergraduates Mentored:
Faculty were also asked how many undergraduates they mentored/worked with during 2000-2001 academic year (or a recent academic year) and compared to five and ten years ago. Of those who responded to this item, 8% reported that they did not mentor undergraduates, 40% mentored 1-2 undergraduates, 30% mentored 3-5 undergraduates, 10% mentored 6-10 undergraduates, 5% mentored 11-15 undergraduates, 2% mentored 16-20 undergraduates, 2% mentored 21-25 undergraduates, and 2% mentored more than 25 undergraduates (Table A11).
Compared to five years ago, 38% mentor more undergraduates (many or somewhat more), 32% mentor about the same number of undergraduates, and 30% mentor fewer undergraduates (somewhat or many fewer). Compared to 10 years ago, 43% mentor more undergraduates (many or somewhat more), 26% mentor about the same number of undergraduates, and 32% mentor fewer undergraduates (somewhat or many fewer). Responses of “not applicable” were excluded from the counts and percents (Table A11).
Differences between academic units were minimal (Table A12). Results were not significantly different when looking at responses of faculty who worked directly with undergraduates and those who worked with grad students.

Student Outcomes:
In this section of the survey, faculty perceptions of student outcomes were assessed. Responses of “unable to determine” and those who did not respond to this item were excluded from the counts and percents. The order of outcomes in decreasing order of percentage of agreement (strongly agree or agree) by faculty is as follows (more details in Table A13):


Drawing conclusions and critically analyzing information

96%

Defining and solving problems

92%

Communication skills

88%

Working independently

87%

Understanding and applying research methods, ethics, and conduct rules

87%

Understanding the link between academics and their careers

79%

Utilizing technology and computer programs

78%

Innovative thinking

74%

Getting along with people who have different attitudes, opinions, and backgrounds

60%

Results by academic unit show statistically significant differences in the following outcomes: drawing conclusion and critically analyzing information; defining and solving problems; innovative thinking; getting along with people with different backgrounds; understanding research methods, ethics, and conduct rules; and utilizing technology and computer programs (Table A14). Table 4 summarizes percentages of respondents who indicated “strongly agree” or “agree” to student outcomes, by academic unit.




Table 4. Student Outcomes by Academic Unit—Percentages of Respondents (strongly agree or agree only)

Student Outcome


Arts

Bio

Engr

Hum

ICS

Med

PS

SE

SS

Drawing conclusions and critically analyzing information

95%

98%

93%

95%

90%

96%

98%

98%

98%

Defining and solving problems

90%

95%

89%

89%

71%

95%

94%

91%

95%

Communication skills

95%

88%

90%

90%

71%

83%

92%

86%

91%

Working independently

89%

95%

86%

97%

80%

81%

82%

88%

82%

Understanding and applying research methods, ethics, and conduct rules

78%

92%

78%

84%

63%

93%

91%

100%

85%

Understanding the link between academics and their careers

89%

81%

73%

82%

69%

85%

84%

91%

68%

Utilizing technology and computer programs

50%

89%

95%

53%

68%

87%

81%

83%

62%

Innovative thinking

90%

71%

80%

83%

55%

64%

76%

69%

78%

Getting along with people who have different attitudes, opinions, and backgrounds

88%

62%

77%

49%

38%

78%

45%

54%

43%

Additional student outcomes reported by faculty under “Other” include: self-confidence, communication skills, responsibility, and self-awareness (Table A15).



Undergraduate Research Experience—Unique and Valuable:
In response to an open-ended item on what makes the undergraduate research experience unique and valuable, the most frequently cited responses (305 responses) were (more details in Table A16):
Faculty access, one-on-one interaction 11%

Real world applications 8%

Get to use research methods 6%

May lead to research careers 5%

Students expand knowledge of subject matter 5%

Hands-on experience 5%



Faculty Outcomes:
This item asked faculty to self-report gains and improvements they made as a result of their involvement in undergraduate research projects. The order of improvements in decreasing order of percentage of agreement (strongly agree or agree) by faculty is as follows (more details in Table A17).


Understanding the learning needs of undergraduate students

80%

Understanding the types of preparatory skills and/or courses that students need before doing research

80%

Understanding the importance of undergraduate research as an integral component of the student’s education, regardless of her/his career choice

76%

My teaching methods

53%

My own research projects

42%

Results by academic unit showed a few differences (Table A18). The following table summarizes percentages of respondents who indicated they “strongly agree” or “agree” to faculty outcomes, by academic unit.


Table 5. Faculty Outcomes by Academic Unit—Percentages of Respondents

Faculty Outcome


Arts

Bio

Engr

Hum

ICS

Med

PS

SE

SS

Understanding the learning needs of undergraduate students

86%

82%

81%

90%

55%

77%

67%

89%

83%

Understanding the types of preparatory skills and/or courses that students need before doing research.

73%

73%

92%

92%

70%

70%

73%

89%

87%

Understanding the importance of undergraduate research as an integral component of the student’s education, regardless of her/his career choice

85%

84%

71%

78%

53%

76%

81%

80%

68%

My teaching methods

59%

56%

46%

57%

45%

65%

47%

55%

57%

My own research projects

48%

34%

44%

37%

55%

51%

45%

32%

37%

Most frequent self-reported outcomes by faculty under “Other” (12 responses) include (Table A19):

Learned something about students 42%

Gave me ideas for my own research 25%



Barriers & Recommendations:
This open-ended item invited faculty to comment on the barriers to mentoring undergraduate research projects, and provide recommendations for reducing these barriers.
The most frequent barriers cited (318 responses) were (more details in Table A20):
Not enough time, too time consuming 43%

Lack of recognition, rewards 24%

Students lack skills, motivation, commitment 19%
The most frequent recommendations cited (143 responses) were (more details in Table A21):
Provide more support, resources 33%

Provide more recognition 24%

Give course credit 12%

Improve undergraduate courses 8%

Better preparation for students 6%

Summer Undergraduate Research Projects:
Faculty were then prompted to indicate whether they have directed a summer undergraduate research project during Summer 2001 by indicating a “yes” or “no.” If the response was “yes,” then the faculty member was invited to comment on the benefits of and obstacles to the summer undergraduate research experience for both faculty and students.
Table 6 summarizes the breakdown of respondents by academic unit of those who indicated that they have directed or have not directed a summer undergraduate research project.
Table 6. Respondents who Indicated “Yes” or “No” to Summer Involvement, by Academic Unit



School

“Yes”


Summer Involvement

No”

Summer Involvement

Arts

4

18


Biological Sciences

34

22

Engineering

21

19

Humanities

4

54

Information & Computer Science

6

16

Management

0

2

Medicine

48

40

Physical Sciences

24

28

Social Ecology

11

26

Social Sciences

17

44

Total


169

269

These data reflect that faculty from the sciences are more likely to mentor an undergraduate summer research project than faculty from other units. For those who have directed undergraduate research projects during Summer of 2001: 66% prefer summer; 3% prefer academic year; and 21% have no preference of whether they direct undergraduate research projects during the academic year or summer (Table A22).



Final Feedback Item– Undergraduate Research Experience & Programs at UCI:
One final open-ended survey item asked for general recommendations about undergraduate research experiences and programs. In general, faculty members were very pleased with the quality of the programs especially UROP and SURP, and the overall reputation UCI has built for the quality of its undergraduate research programs. Table A23 summarizes the frequency of their responses.

V. FACULTY WHO HAVE NOT MENTORED UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PROJECTS OR CREATIVE ACTIVITIES:
Faculty who have indicated a “no” to mentoring undergraduate research projects were asked to provide feedback regarding the reasons that might have prevented them from doing so. Multiple responses were allowed. Based on the responses, the following table lists the reasons in decreasing order by the number of respondents selecting that reason for not mentoring undergraduate research projects.
Table 7. Reasons for Not Mentoring Undergraduate Research Projects

Reasons

Respondents


N

%

I just started my faculty career at UCI.


49

41%

My area of research is not suitable for undergraduate research.


19

16%

There is not adequate support available at the central or departmental level, or through my own research funds to facilitate undergraduate student involvement with me on research projects.


12

10%

I do not have any time available in my schedule to mentor undergraduate research projects.


12

10%

I would rather invest my time working with graduate students.


10

8%

I do not think there is adequate university recognition of faculty’s efforts in mentoring undergraduate research projects.


9

8%

I do not think undergraduates are adequately prepared to conduct faculty-mentored research projects.


5

4%

Students were not able to make the commitment that I was expecting.


4

3%

Total





120

100%

Some of the responses provided under “Other,” include: very busy with an administrative position; nobody has approached me; I primarily work with graduate or professional school students; our department has just started an undergraduate program.




VI. CONCLUSION:
We are very pleased with the response rate and reaction of the faculty from all schools to the survey. Considering the short timeline of less than three weeks for faculty to respond to the invitation and complete the survey, faculty were quite responsive. We also know of at least 97 faculty who participated in UROP/SURP but could not complete the survey in time due to their schedules. Faculty felt the online survey was user-friendly. They did not experience difficulty in completing it using multiple browsers, operating systems, or accessing it from on- or off-campus. The only exception was one faculty member who was using a relatively older computer and browser version, but was accommodated by sending him a copy of the survey attached to an e-mail message for him to complete.
As one might expect, faculty from schools/departments that primarily offer graduate/professional degree programs and those specializing in highly theoretical subjects and languages were less likely to respond to the survey, since there are not many undergraduates involved in their areas of research.
The survey showed that a majority of the faculty work directly with undergraduates, but some rely on graduate students, and others would like the role of graduate students and post docs to be further cultivated in mentoring undergraduates. Most faculty believe in the importance of getting students involved in faculty-mentored research projects and in experiencing the process, regardless of the end result or research gain. There is a general understanding that the multiple benefits gained from engaging undergraduates in research (i.e., knowledge expansion, skills development, building confidence, exposure to careers, etc.) will be of great help in shaping the student’s future decisions and ensuring her/his success. Other important outcomes include: engaging students in the research culture by interacting with research personnel, and the opportunity to present and publish research results.
Faculty members are spending more time mentoring more undergraduates compared to 10 years ago than compared to five years ago. Faculty’s self-reported improvements following their involvement in mentoring undergraduate research projects include the perception that faculty now have a better understanding of students learning needs and the types of preparatory skills and/or courses that students need to take before conducting research. Faculty also report that they have a better understanding of the importance of undergraduate research as an integral component of the quality undergraduate education a student would expect to receive at UCI. Some of the major barriers that faculty reported to mentoring undergraduate research projects include: lack of available time, lack of faculty recognition, and inadequate student preparation. To address some of these barriers, faculty would like to see more resources allocated in support of undergraduate research, and for faculty mentoring efforts to play a bigger role in the CAP review process, or for such efforts to be rewarded through department-based or university-wide rewards/awards.
Additional recommendations include the need for higher administration (Chancellor and EVC) to emphasize that faculty are expected to mentor students in conducting research projects, and in effect making it a priority. Some believe in mentoring regardless of faculty recognition; rather, it is their self-satisfaction and observation of the impact such experience will have on students’ career that motives them to mentor undergraduates. A few feel that some of their colleagues need to change their expectations and realize student projects will not provide much research gain, and some should be more open to mentoring projects not directly related to their area of research.
Faculty believe that the summer undergraduate research involvement enhances students’ learning more evidently than involvement during the academic year. Important benefits include the ability of participants to focus and dedicate the appropriate amount of time working on a project, which provides for better interaction between students and faculty. As a result, comments suggest that participating faculty are very supportive of the summer undergraduate research involvement, and programs that provide students’ summer stipends (i.e., SURP)—freeing students from finding a job to support their living expenses. Some of the minor obstacles to summer involvement include: lack of faculty compensation (arts and humanities), possible conflicts with the faculty member’s travel or vacation plans, and lack of personnel to build group synergy (sciences).
In addition, faculty have provided positive comments about the different programs in support of undergraduate research. As a catalyst to energizing and supporting the undergraduate research culture at UCI, faculty acknowledged the value of UROP’s programs in achieving a successful undergraduate research experience from advising students to providing funding in support of research-related supplies, to sponsoring the Symposium and Journal, and the recent launch of SURP. One faculty mentioned “that it was difficult not to find one thing to criticize about UROP.” There remains the perception in some disciplines that UROP is geared more towards the sciences than other sectors of the campus. UROP needs to assure faculty that it is actually providing funding and support almost equally to sciences, on the one hand, and to social sciences, humanities and the arts, on the other.


VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Our gratitude goes to many individuals who have assisted with this project, and have supported the undergraduate research culture at UCI. We especially recognize the time and efforts of our faculty members not only in completing the survey, but most importantly in mentoring undergraduate research projects and creative activities. Our thanks also go to our undergraduates for being active participants in the research process at UC Irvine. We are also grateful for the support of Chancellor Ralph Cicerone and Executive Vice Chancellor Michael Gottfredson and their commitment to faculty-mentored undergraduate research at UCI. Dean Meredith Lee’s leadership and guidance have been crucial to the implementation of this project. Our thanks also go to the following individuals in the Division of Undergraduate Education: Associate Dean Robert Newsom and Assistant Dean Fawzi Hermes for their input, and Director Judy Shoemaker for her extensive work in tabulating the data and overall assistance with this project.
Prepared by:
Said M. Shokair

Director, Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program


Winter Quarter, 2002

1 UROP, a comprehensive campuswide program, was founded on the principle of supporting and facilitating faculty-mentored research projects and creative activities from all schools and academic disciplines. UROP nurtures students through the entire research process, from the time a student first expresses an interest in participating in a research project and finding a faculty mentor, to planning the research and disseminating the results. UROP advises students on research opportunities on- and off-campus, provides funding through two calls for proposals (Fall and Spring Quarters of each academic year) in support of research-related supplies and expenses, and sponsors the UCI Undergraduate Research Symposium, and The UCI Undergraduate Research Journal. In 2001, UROP gave birth to the Summer Undergraduate Research Program (SURP), which provides UCI undergraduates the opportunity to become immersed in a research topic for a full-time ten-week period or the equivalence of 400 hours under the guidance of UCI faculty members, and receive a $3,000 stipend.






Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©anasahife.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət